<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1972 (1) TMI 118 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300334</link>
    <description>An arbitration award that merely recited an earlier partition did not itself require registration, but the fresh charge created over immovable property was a transaction affecting such property and was ineffective without registration. The absence of registration, however, did not invalidate the entire award because the personal money liability found on accounting was severable from the charge and remained independently enforceable. The award was also admissible in evidence once the necessary stamp duty and penalty had been paid. The registration objection therefore defeated only the charge over immovable property, not the enforceable monetary obligation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2022 14:24:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=668205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (1) TMI 118 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300334</link>
      <description>An arbitration award that merely recited an earlier partition did not itself require registration, but the fresh charge created over immovable property was a transaction affecting such property and was ineffective without registration. The absence of registration, however, did not invalidate the entire award because the personal money liability found on accounting was severable from the charge and remained independently enforceable. The award was also admissible in evidence once the necessary stamp duty and penalty had been paid. The registration objection therefore defeated only the charge over immovable property, not the enforceable monetary obligation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300334</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>